260 ANALYTIC ORTHOGRAPHY. 
5. Alphabets of hundreds of characters have been cut for Arabic, Sanscrit, and Greek; * 
the Greek vowel zota requires the fifteen types 44444 % 4 % @ % 2 1, @ % ¢ the general al- 
phabet proposed by S‘ufic’, (Schunjitsch in German letters,) requires seventy-two vowel 
modifications; astronomers and mathematicians have a sufficient typography, and the com- 
plicated notation of modern music can be set up in detached types. 
6. The chemic alphabet came from the hand of a philosopher; English writing has been 
controlled by the literary and superficial, as distinguished from the scientific public; the 
alchemists rather than the chemists—astrologers rather than astronomers—linguists like 
Trench, rather than philologists ike Rapp, who “settle” questions in spelling, pronunci- 
ation, and grammar, according to English analogies, without knowing what these analogies 
are. + 
6 a. Goold Brown writes a ponderous “Grammar of English Grammars,” after consult- 
ing about four hundred authorities, but instead of producing a cyclopedia on the subject, 
the work is worthless for deciding questions which depend upon general principles. With 
him, (and probably nine-tenths of his four hundred grammarians,) awe is a tripthong, be- 
ginning with a; and with Trench, (in lectures, and therefore clear of spelling,) “ané and 
emmet were originally different spellings of the same word,” (as “gaol” and “jail,’ or 
“plough” and “ plow” are at present,) but he does not tell us whether the “same word ” 
that “ant” spelt, was emmet, or the reverse, ‘““emmet” spelling ant.t 
6 6. A college student asserts, in a published communication, that one of his professors 
* « Where ligatures and abbreviations abound . . . 750 boxes are required for the different sorts of a fount of 
Greek . . . It must, however, be observed, that almost 300 of these sorts are the same, and have no other dif- 
ference than that of being kerned on their hind side; for we remember to have seen Greek with capitals kerned 
on both sides.” —Printers’ Grammar, 1797, p. 242. 
{ This Essay owes its form and matter to the following circumstances. In the year 1857, Sir Wm. C. Trevelyan, 
A. M. (Oxford,) of Wallington, Newcastle-on-Tyne, offered two prizes for essays on a Reform in the Spelling of 
the English Language, to contain, among other features, an Analysis of the System of Articulate Sounds—an Ex- 
position of those occurring in English—and an Alphabetic Notation, in which ‘‘as few new types as possible should 
be admitted.” The last requisition has, in a few cases, resulted in a double notation, one of which represents the 
author’s preference in a new form of type, the other being a form in use, but not approved. ‘The investigation 
was made from a natural history point of view, and the results are here presented. A Report is yet to be made 
to the American Association for the Advancement of Science on the Subject of an Alphabetic Notation for exotic 
Languages. Suggestions and criticisms are solicited towards this end, to be addressed to the author at Columbia, 
Pennsylvania. 
t Similarly Webster, the chief of English lexicographers—“ nations differ in the orthography of some initial 
sounds. . . . Thus the Spanish has Z/amar for the Latin clamo.”’ This is a difference of “orthography” in the 
same sense that English “knee” differs from the Saxon “knee.’’? People who hold such views must consider 
tear tear, sow sow, bow bow, wind wind, wound wound, as identic, because they do not “differ in the orthography;” 
whilst convey inveigh, receipt deceit, noun renown, sprite sprightly, expatiate spacious, presistance -ency, consistent 
resistant, must be considered as wanting identity. 
